Cosmeceuticals & Controversy

Fibroblasts

  Welcome to ItsSkinDeep! I want to dedicate this first post to the controversy surrounding anti-ageing cosmetic ingredients.

Multiple claims made for anti-ageing creams plague the media with little to no scientific evidence to support them. Take a look at this beauty article on marieclaire.com (click here). Spot any scientific evidence (e.g. journal articles) to back them up?

Other claims have been made by self-proclaimed skin experts. “Cosmetics will take advantage from those technologies that will allow one to achieve observable results upon topical application. Stabilized enzymes used in topical applications will help to repair [damage] after exposure to solar radiation, or to digest pigments in age spots. Appropriate polymers will tighten the skin and reduce the appearance of lines and wrinkles, or prolong moisturization”, noted skin care expert and vice president of Herbalife Ltd., Paolo Giacomoni (Rinaldi, 2008).

What You Need to Know

Although such anti-ageing claims can be stated, there is a requisite for them to be backed up by scientific evidence. This encompasses preclinical tests which include in vitro testing (animal/human cells and/or biological molecules studied in solution or in artificial culture medium; also known as “test tube experimentation”), in vivo testing (effects of biological compounds tested on intact living organisms, e.g. mice), as well as clinical trials (testing in humans). These test an ingredient's efficacy, safety and toxicity.

In vitro= within the glass; In vivo= within the living

Fibroblasts

Examples of in vitro testing with regards to cosmetic ingredients include testing various ingredient concentrations in tissue cultures, some including human models, e.g. human lung fibroblasts, human dermal fibroblasts, and mammary and abdominal skin biopsies, as well as animal models, e.g. mouse dermal fibroblasts. A fibroblast is a cell in the dermis and hypodermis of skin, producing proteins such as collagen, elastin, glycosaminoglycans and fibronectin, bestowing the skin with its elasticity, tensility and stability. When testing a cosmetic ingredient's efficacy, scientists are looking for an increase in the production of skin proteins, e.g. new collagen fibres. 

Controversy

The term ‘skin-ageing’ is puzzling; given that it is not a disease, how can cosmetic ingredients be marketed as having the ability to exert biological effects such as improving the appearance of wrinkles? If they could do this, this would make them pharmaceuticals as they are targeting a biological system, affecting structure and function in the body. But pharmaceuticals treat diseases, and skin-ageing is not a disease. 

Cosmetic companies have dodged this by classifying compositions as ‘cosmeceuticals’, a term coined to describe a topically applied cosmetic invention comprising ‘active ingredients’ claimed to possess drug-like effects on a biological system. If there is evidence to show a cosmetic product has drug-like properties, authorisation as a pharmaceutical must be made before sale. However,  what profit would companies create from making an ingredient druggable? Cosmetic companies evade the costly processes entailing research to reveal an ingredient's efficacy, e.g. preclinical test and clinical trials; creams including such ingredients would only be available on prescription if these tests were done. The aim of a cosmetic supplier is to gain profit; ensuring the product is readily available on the shelves so as many consumers as possible can purchase their products. At the end of the day, it is all about money, right?

The US Food and Drug administration (FDA) FD&C Act has stated it “does not recognize any such category as “cosmeceutical”. A product can be a drug, a cosmetic, or a combination of both, but the term “cosmeceutical” has no meaning under the law.” Click here and here to see more information on FDA authority over cosmetics. For a majority of cosmetic products, there is no obligation for them to be sanctioned by the FDA. Therefore, dubious statements can be made regarding the effect of compositions such as anti-ageing creams; ‘cosmeceutical’ can be thought of as a marketing ploy to draw consumers into buying a product. 

Fortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority patrols the media; it intervenes when misleading/offensive advertisements are exposed to the public and bans their broadcasting or publishing. Regarding cosmetic products, an ‘active ingredients’ efficacy is evaluated by the ASA upon complaint about an advertisement, such as that for Nivea Vital moisturising cream in August 2013. To read more about this incident, click here: Advertising Standards Authority.

Read More:

For of an overview on biotechnologically-derived cosmetic ingredients, read: Healing beauty? More biotechnology cosmetic products that claim drug-like properties reach the market.

For a detailed account on skin architecture, read: Basic histological structure and functions of facial skin

Bibliography:

Arda. O., Göksügür, N., Tüzün, Y., “Basic histological structure and functions of facial skin.” Clinics in Dermatology 32(1) (2014): 3-13.

Rinaldi, A., “Healing beauty? More biotechnology cosmetic products that claim drug-like properties reach the market.” Science and Society 9(11) (2008): 1073-1077.

Image credit: Tinyscience, invivotransfection